Some, including this writer, are increasingly concerned that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is morphing into a kind of royal guard that would be loyal only to the Administration. Originally tasked with fighting externally originated terrorism, DHS has slowly remade itself into an internal security force. It has infiltrated virtually all forms of travel within the U.S.: Air, rail, bus and even freeway checkpoints. It is asserting its authority over major sporting events and other large venues.
It is estimated that there are in excess of 270 million privately-owned firearms in the United States. The rate of saturation is approximately 88.8 firearms per 100 people. In contrast, total weapons among the nation’s police force number upwards of 897,000.
If every policeman fired his weapon 1,000 times per year (99.99 percent for proficiency training), then entire force would require 897 million rounds of ammunition. Let’s round it up to an even 1 billion rounds of ammunition – for all the police forces across America.
Why do non-military federal agencies (who answer directly to the President) feel that they also need to acquire well over 1 billion rounds of ammunition by then end of 2012? Why does the Social Security Administration need 174,000 rounds? Or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 46,000 rounds? About one billion rounds will go to DHS.
The majority of the Administration’s purchases, including for DHS, are for copper-jacketed hollow point bullets.According to Major General Jerry Curry (USA (Ret.), “Hollow point bullets are so lethal that theGeneva Convention does not allow their use on the battle field in time of war. Hollow point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows.” (emphasis added)
So, the Administration is stocking up on lethal ammunition to use in the U.S., that even the military doesn’t use in Afghanistan or Iraq? This type of ammunition is never used for training purposes, by the way, because training ammo is much cheaper.
General Curry further writes,
“We have enough military forces to maintain law and order in the U.S. even during times of civil unrest.
“We have local police, backed up by each state’s National Guard, backed up by the Department of Defense. So in addition to all these forces why does DHS need its own private army? Why do the SSA, NOAA and other government agencies need to create their own civilian security forces armed with hollow nose bullets?
“Were I the JCS, and if I wasn’t already fully briefed on this matter, I’d stop the purchase of hollow point bullets, ask the secretary of Defense why all this ammunition is being purchased and spread around the country? If I got answers like the ones Congress got during the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious – I’d start tracking all ammunition deliveries nationwide to find out what organizations and units are using them, for what purpose and, if it is not constitutional, prepare to counteract whatever it is that they are doing”. (emphasis added)
Is the DHS indeed building its own private army? If so, for what purpose? We already have more than adequate defense between military and national guard units in every state. Does DHS have a different loyalty than the military or local police forces?
Is this the answer to Obama’s 2008 campaign statement that “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
I fully agree that Congress should immediately investigate Federal stockpiling of lethal ammunition, and when the stonewalling begins, don’t let it turn into another black hole, like it has with Operation Fast and Furious.
Every national political cycle is full of unexpected twists and turns, and 2012 is no exception.
As the GOP selection process narrowed down to Mitt Romney, I noted that Romney was the major recipient of Wall Street contributions, making him the apparent “chosen one” for the nomination. Assuming that he was the “chosen one” for the Presidency was premature.
An alternate and viable possibility is that Romney could simply be the “controlled opposition” to insure that Obama was elected for a second term. The milk-toast effort by Sen. John McCain in 2008 was an example of a rigged candidate: His campaign failed at every turn to engage the American voter on the most important issues.
Thus far, Romney is following in McCain’s footsteps. He has not called Obama out on any key issue that could and should boost his ratings. for instance, he could blast the President for killing the Keystone Pipeline, and pledge to restore it and bring the U.S. to energy independence. He could nail the President for ruining the coal industry and pledge to reverse those policies. He could attack any number of unconstitutional Executive Orders and pledge to overturn them. He could demand answers to the Fast and Furious scandal and pledge to rid the Justice Department of criminal and unconstitutional activities. He could rail against sleazy Chicago-style politics being employed by Obama and pledge to restore electoral fairness and non-partisanship in the American voting system.
He is doing none of that so far.
Romney’s failure to distinguish himself is bad enough, but the fact that positive public sentiment is riding high may be even more damaging to his campaign. With the Fed’s recent pledge for QE3, stocks are further elevated and people are tired of all the economic gloom and doom of the last five years. History clearly shows that an incumbent President will prevail in a reelection attempt when public sentiment is high. Thus, Obama has an historical edge without even opening his mouth.
In short, this writer will currently call “Obama to win down the home stretch.”